G.R. NO. 133033 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [petitioner] in both cases and against the [respondents], ordering the latter and all persons claiming under them to vacate the premises in question and to pay attorneys fees jointly and severally the amount of P5,000.00 in both cases and costs. SO ORDERED (Emphasis supplied). In time, respondents went on appeal to the Regional Trial Court at Calamba, Laguna. Initially, in a decision [6] dated June 4, 1997, the RTC set aside that of the MTC and ordered the remand of the cases to the latter, explaining that the suits could not have been covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure because the defense interposed by the respondents raised the question of ownership, reason for which the MTC should have directed petitioner to adduce in evidence its muniments of title to show that the portion (occupied) by the [respondents] is embraced in [petitioners] property. Later, however, on petitioners motion for reconsideration, the RTC, in an order [7] dated August 22, 1997, set aside its earlier decision and affirmed en toto the appealed MTC decision, explaining that the Rules on Summary Procedure, as amended, applies even if the issue of ownership is involved, adding that the remedy left to respondents is to contest petitioners ownership in an appropriate forum and not in the forcible entry case filed against them. With neither of the contending parties taking an appeal from the aforementioned order of the RTC, said order became final and executory and the cases ultimately remanded to the MTC. Hence, on October 10, 1997, the MTC, again on petitioners motion, issued a Writ of Execution commanding the sheriff to cause the [respondents] to forthwith remove from said premises and to restore petitioner thereto. This was followed by a Writ of Demolition, [8] ordering the sheriff to destroy and demolish respondents houses and constructions, it appearing that despite the earlier writ, respondents refused to vacate the lot subject-matter of these cases. On November 6, 1997, respondents went to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order, thereat docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 45879 , praying the appellate court to restrain the sheriff from implementing the writ of demolition, which, according to them, the sheriff is poised to implement the next day, November 7, 1997. Acting on the petition, the Court of Appeals forthwith issued a temporary restraining order on November 7, 1997, but the same appears to have been received by the Sheriff after the houses of the [respondents] had been destroyed, albeit respondents have remained in the premises . [9] As stated at the outset hereof, the Court of Appeals, in a decision [10] dated January 7, 1998, set aside the MTCs Order of Execution, Writ of Execution and Writ of Demolition insofar as Lots 5 and 7 covered by T.C.T. Nos. T-66140 and T-61703 are concerned , and directed petitioner and the sheriff to desist fro